[JoshBB]

OH that. i thought it was gonna be some kind of 'anti-[group]' comment from what you posted

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

That's not the question. And making fun of a burkha adds nothing to the debate but prejudice.

So, I'll ask again. Would it be different?

Did he make 'fun' of it he said it looks like a letterbox and it does,I am not particularly fond of Boris but in this instant I think it's been taken over the top,that is my opinion like it or lump it.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Did he make 'fun' of it he said it looks like a letterbox and it does,I am not particularly fond of Boris but in this instant I think it's been taken over the top,that is my opinion like it or lump it.

Again, would it be okay to make fun of Jewish or Christian religious clothing?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Again, would it be okay to make fun of Jewish or Christian religious clothing?

Yes!, it would.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

would you defend Boris if he had made mocking remarks about a Jew's skullcap?

Only if people started whinging and spuriously claimed it was "racist". I wouldn't give a crap if he mocked those items of clothing, as I don't actually care he mocked the face coverings, which do look like a letterbox or bank robber.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Again, would it be okay to make fun of Jewish or Christian religious clothing?

He didn't make 'fun' of anything,just said what they looked like.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He didn't make 'fun' of anything,just said what they looked like.

He pretty much objectively did. If you can't acknowledge that then I can't discuss this with you because it's like debating a brick wall.

Originally Posted by Alf

Yes!, it would.

Ah, then we share different views on tolerance and diversity my friend.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Only if people started whinging and spuriously claimed it was "racist". I wouldn't give a crap if he mocked those items of clothing, as I don't actually care he mocked the face coverings, which do look like a letterbox or bank robber.

I really can't understand why you would change your opinion based on how other people respond to it. And whether or not they look like letterboxes is your opinion, and you can think whatever you'd like, it just becomes an issue when you're in government and openly mock the people you're supposed to represent. It's a betrayal of Muslims in the UK.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

He pretty much objectively did. If you can't acknowledge that then I can't discuss this with you because it's like debating a brick wall.



Ah, then we share different views on tolerance and diversity my friend.



I really can't understand why you would change your opinion based on how other people respond to it. And whether or not they look like letterboxes is your opinion, and you can think whatever you'd like, it just becomes an issue when you're in government and openly mock the people you're supposed to represent. It's a betrayal of Muslims in the UK.

That's ok, It doesn't make me think any less of you, and I wish you a happy and prosperous life.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Just goes to show what a terrible cretin he is. Regardless of a politician's view on burkhas, to insult a piece of religious clothing in such a way is extremely insensitive and prejudiced. I expect the Tories will find themselves struggling to pick up votes from Muslims if he isn't sacked..

I don't think it shows him as a 'terrible cretin' at all

What ever that means

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I really can't understand why you would change your opinion based on how other people respond to it. And whether or not they look like letterboxes is your opinion, and you can think whatever you'd like, it just becomes an issue when you're in government and openly mock the people you're supposed to represent. It's a betrayal of Muslims in the UK.

I didn't say I'd change my opinion, I just wouldn't need to defend humourous comments about kippah or nuns' habits, because people wouldn't be chimping out.

[Beso]

Some of them have to wear them...


Nāmūs is the Arabic word (Greek "νόμος") of a concept of an ethical category, a virtue, in Middle Eastern patriarchal character. Literally translated as "virtue", it is now more popularly used in a strong gender-specific context of relations within a family described in terms of honor, attention, respect/respectability, and modesty.

The concept of namus in respect to sexual integrity of family members is an ancient, exclusively cultural concept which predates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.[citation needed]

Etymology Edit
The Arabic word "nāmūs" (ناموس) may mean "law", "custom" or "honor". The Ancient Greek word "nómos" (νόμος) means "law, custom".[1][self-published source]

Gender Edit
Namus has been translated into English from the Turkish language with different meanings. Honor is used to mean namus in the English language translation of Filiz Kardam's 2005 paper on namus cinayetleri (literally namus murders), but Nüket Kardam has written that chastity is a more accurate translation than honor. By the latter definition, honor is seen as an imperfect translation because the concept of namus implies the idea that men have a right to insist on feminine chastity. This is built into the legal system which permits reduced sentences for honor killings.[2][3]

The Turkish language has multiple words to describe related concepts of honor including namus, onur and şeref. Though namus is often understood as feminine sexual virtue or chastitiy, this definition is becoming outdated amongst some members of Turkish society. The official definition of namus from the Foundation of Turkish Language is "the attachment of a society to moral rules".[4]

Women's premarital virginity is still regarded as a matter of honor by some families. These cultural perceptions persist in modern metropolitan areas, as well as in the more traditional areas of the rural countryside. Some old-fashioned customs continue to endure, such as requiring proof of virginity in the form of blooded sheets, or in some cases by medical examination. Though Kemalism has contributed to the rapid modernization of the country in many aspects, traditional sexual mores have proven to be resilient. Even those families who encouraged their daughters to pursue professional careers as teachers, doctors or lawyers maintained the expectation that these women would continue to conduct themselves virtuously as "dedicated mothers, and modest housewives".[5]

In some societies, e.g., in Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, namus goes beyond the basic family and is common for a plarina, a unit of the tribe that has a common ancestral father.[6][better source needed]

Violations of namus Edit
The namus of a man is violated if, for example, a daughter is born into the family instead of a son, or if an adult daughter is not dressed "appropriately", or if he tolerates an offense without reaction.[7][8][9]

Among Pashtuns an encroachment on a man's plot of land also signifies violation of his namus.[6]

Restoration of namus Edit
According to those who adhere to this concept, a man is supposed to control the women in his family. If he loses control of them (his wife, sisters, daughters), his namus is lost in the eyes of the community and he has to cleanse his (and his family's) honor. This is often done by abortion, murder or forced suicide.

In the Western world, such cases are especially visible in immigrant societies when a girl faces the conflict between her choice of the culture of the new home society and the traditions of the old home.[10]

In cases of rape, the woman is not seen as a victim. Instead, it is considered that the namus of the whole family has been violated, and to restore it, an honor killing of the raped woman may happen (estimated 5,000 victims yearly and on the rise worldwide[11]). The raped woman may also commit forced suicide.[12] In Pakistan, acid is often thrown on the victim's face to disfigure her as an alternative to murder.[13]

In British Bangladeshi immigrant culture and in Anatolian Turkish culture the violation of namus can result in the murder of the male involved with the female family member.[14]

Meanwhile, in cases of namus loss due to the arrival of a female child into the family, infanticide or sex-selective abortion may occur.[15]

Namus around the world Edit
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights gathered reports from several countries and considering only the countries that submitted reports it was shown that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, United States, Canada and Uganda.[16]

In 2002 international attention was drawn to the murder of Fadime Şahindal, of the Kurdish minority in Sweden, who violated namus by suing her father and brother for threats made against her and then rejecting the marriage arranged for her.[17]

Support and opposition Edit
Some Jordanian Islamic groups say that punishment of adulterous wives should be left to the state, while others say Islam advocates that male relatives should carry out the punishment. Yotam Feldner writes, "if honor killing originated in pre-Islamic Arab tribalism, it has long since been incorporated into Islamic society and thereby become common throughout the Muslim world".[18] However, "'Izzat Muhaysin, a psychiatrist at the Gaza Program for Mental Health, [...] says that the culture of the society perceives one who refrains from 'washing shame with blood' as 'a coward who is not worthy of living.'[18]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family 'honor

[Beso]

Boris Johnson has said "women who wear the burqa resemble bank robbers" and I think he has a point.......


I caught a glimpse of my neighbour without hers on the other day and she's a ringer for Mad Frankie Fraser.
**** knows how Boris knew that.

[bots]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Imagine being a muslim and Bojo is your MP though. it creates a massive disconnect and a feeling, once again, that they are unrepresented and marginalised.

have you considered the possibility that they think it looks like a post box too. It's a statement of fact about an item of clothing. I've made fun of the pope and his hat, loads of comedians have, many have poked fun at nuns uniforms, comedians have fun at jewish clothing, jewish food ... like bacon etc


It's not disrespecting a religion, its commenting on the similarity between an item of clothing and a postal service item.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Again, would it be okay to make fun of Jewish or Christian religious clothing?

I do not really want to post on here that much anymore, but I am sick of reading spurious arguments which are based on false premises or misapprehensions.

In the context of most posts on here which are lambasting Boris Johnson for his 'anti-muslim' comments - a misapprehension in itself - 'Jewish and Christian Religious Clothing' is specifically worn by the CLERGY of those faiths, the Burqa and Niqab are NOT 'religious clothing' but clothing worn by Muslim women who are 'Lay' persons and NOT part of the Islam clergy.

So to interpret Boris Johnson's comments as 'making fun' of Islamic religious clothing is ERRONEOUS to start with, but to then add 'How would you like it if someone made fun of Jewish and Christian religious clothing' - or similar - is doubly so.

There is ZILCH in the Quran about the Burqa or Niqab, let alone any compulsion for Muslim women to wear them, and criticising such dress may not be good manners - especially hailing from a politician - but it is NOT 'Islamaphobic'.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Maru

Oh, Boris is a SD reader. Explains everything.

Spoiler:

Do you think Trump is lurking here too?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

People jump on it because it's plain offensive. They're right to do so. To contextualise, as muslim-hate is apparently excusable in our society atm, would you defend Boris if he had made mocking remarks about a Jew's skullcap? Or a nun's headdress?

& that isn't to strawman you. I just struggle to see why you would want to defend this Boris outburst

And yet women being forced to wear it because they aren't fit to be seen by men because the look of them will turn the men all into sex offenders isn't offensive?

Really look at what you are defending.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Did he make 'fun' of it he said it looks like a letterbox and it does

Is this a serious post

Everyone loves being referred to as a ****ing letterbox!

[Withano]

Josh has single handedly destroyed everybody in this thread. Kudos to him.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Is this a serious post

Everyone loves being referred to as a ****ing letterbox!

Well no one was being referred to as a letterbox. An item of clothing was compared to one. Do try to get it straight.

[Alf]

All Boris said was "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"


Bag of gravel anyone?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Well no one was being referred to as a letterbox. An item of clothing was compared to one.

The op specifically says he was discussing muslim women, so actually thats quite a lot of people being reffered to as a letterbox.

Do try to get it straight.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

The op specifically says he was discussing muslim women, so actually thats quite a lot of people being reffered to as a letterbox.

Do try to get it straight.

Fortunately a large majority of Muslim women aren't oppressed into a burqa.

[Withano]

Quite a sad state when a male politician can mock the appearance of any woman, without a hint of irony, and others will empower his right to do so. Its sad because its probably because he is simply right wing, and so are his defenders of this incident.

His words, in any contextual settings are cruel and discriminatory. All of his defenders would have had a field day if a leftie said something similar.

[Ammi]

....didn’t he also say that despite what he feels they look like..(..comparing them to letterboxes and ‘thieve’ garments...way to go Boris with those comparisons...)...that the U.K. should not consider banning them like other countries are doing...because banning them would only boost the radical views that seem to be gaining strength...interesting that, that bit is barely being reported or discussed in the media...and some newspapers haven’t mentioned it at all so far as I can see...yep, it’s a dangerous world we live in atm sadly...and no more so than if you’re a Muslim...



...even if he now clarifies the whole context which some media have avoided...the damage is done, I fear...

[Tom4784]

Anything that covers a person's face shouldn't be allowed to be worn in certain public places, I don't think anyone takes issue with that part. It's the comparing them to criminals thing that's the problem. Suggesting that Muslims are dangerous just because of what they wear is problematic and fuels hatred against them.

I also take issue with people saying that basically muslim women are put upon and brainwashed into wearing Burkhas and the like. I think that's very patronising towards an entire subsection of women.